668 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIII. No. 591. 



outside of 'evolution,' and is another process, 

 called by Dr. Cook ' speciation.' Both proc- 

 esses are connected only in so far as evolution 

 furnishes the material for speciation. 



This analysis shows at a glance that what 

 Dr. Cook calls ' evolution ' is in fact nothing 

 but the well-known process of ' variation ' f 

 possibly it is only a special form of it, since 

 according to Dr. Cook's statements, a progress 

 or advance is implied in * evolution.' Be this 

 as it may, evolution in Dr. Cook's sense is 

 certainly included in the old concept of varia- 

 tion, that is to say in the general and funda- 

 mental axiom of the Darwinian theory that 

 organic beings, during the process of develop- 

 ment, change or vary, that the descendants 

 may differ from their ancestors, that a change 

 of characters takes place during the phylo- 

 genetic development of organic forms. 



Thus Dr. Cook's idea is new only in so far 

 as he tries to restrict the original meaning of 

 the term ' evolution.' In previous literature, 

 ' evolution ' includes all factors that con- 

 tribute to the development of the organic 

 world : it includes variation as well as inherit- 

 ance, natural selection and segregation' and 

 several others, which have not found universal 

 recognition as independent processes. But 

 now Dr. Cook tries to teach us that the word 

 ' evolution ' should be deprived of its general 

 meaning, and should be used only in place of 

 * variation,' with a peculiar restriction. 



It hardly seems advisable to accept this 

 change of the meaning of a word used in the 

 same sense by all previous writers. Although 

 Dr. Cook feels the necessity of doing so, and 

 in spite of his criticism of the ' chosen people 

 of science ' for their failure to see the pro- 

 priety of this change, I for my part prefer to 

 call the whole process of development of the 

 organic world, from its beginning to its end, 

 by the name of ' evolution,' which is synonym 

 to ' development,' and also to ' origin of spe- 

 cies,' ' descent,' and also to ' Darwinian the- 



' ' Evolution ... is the journey of which 

 individual variations are steps.' O. F. Cook, in 

 Pop. 8ci. Mo., 64, 1904, p. 449. 



* For particulars see Proc. Am. Philos. Soc, 35, 

 1896, p. 188. 



ory.' Dr. Cook's ' simple distinction ' between 

 ' evolution ' (= variation) and ' speciation ' 

 (= all other factors) is not simple at all, but 

 highly confused and confusing, since the 

 meaning of a well-established word is arbi- 

 trarily changed, without the slightest neces- 

 sity (other terms being available). Thus I 

 must positively decline to accept Dr. Cook's 

 conception of ' evolution.' 



To the disinclination of other men of sci- 

 ence to accept the terminology suggested by 

 Dr. Cook is apparently due his complaint that 

 the ' very ungracious task to convince ' them 

 of the correctness of his position falls upon 

 his shoulders. But there is no need for him 

 to complain. The distinction recommended 

 has actually been made hefore, and there have 

 been other people who have conceived similar 

 ideas, although different terms were used by 

 them. I myself have emphasized in the 

 article referred to by Dr. Cook," that I regard 

 isolation only as a factor in species-mahing 

 (speciation), and have quoted a paper of 

 mine," where I have set forth my views in 

 detail. Thus, five years before Dr. Cook's 

 first publication on this subject,' I have 'per- 

 ceived these elementary facts,' that there are 

 not only ' two groups of phenomena belonging 

 to entirely different categories,' but that there 

 are four of them. The first of them is varia- 

 tion, which furnishes the material for the 

 others, and must be taken for granted, no 

 matter ' what an Irishman might say.' But 

 this has not ' saved the writing ' of Dr. Cook's 

 papers, for he apparently has not taken the 

 trouble to ascertain what my views are. 

 Moreover, I do not claim, by any means, to 

 be the only one who was able to ' perceive this 

 elementary fact ' that the origin of species is 

 composed of several processes belonging to 

 different categories, but I have always af- 

 firmed that already Darwin, in the ' Origin of 

 Species ' very properly distinguished them 

 and discussed them, at least saw clearly that 

 there are different questions involved. That 

 Darwin has been misunderstood and misin- 



» Science, January 12, 1906, p. 71. 



' Proo. Am. Philos. Soc, 35, 1896, p. 175 ff. 



'Science, 13, 1901, p. 969. 



